^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.

Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.

It is an interesting way to look at it that not everyone wants health care, and would like the right to not pay 200+ dollars a month. However, I would like your opinion on when people don't have health care, and need to go to the hospital and rack up thousands of dollars worth of bills and can't pay it and that causes bad public debt, if that should ruin it for the honest ones? Also, how many honest ones who would pay do you think are out there?

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Love the sarcasm! Great way to put it. Can't forget the public education system, too!

Exactly! How could I forget the public education system? I'm ashamed of myself.

what should be done, possibly, is that the government gets in charge of some healthcare and some healthcare is left to completely private market. i think that it would make sense, (if the government was actually closer to a democracy and collectivism), if everyone came together to insure each other through the government. the way the collective should decide what needs to be covered is to first just list every possible illness/disease. then pick the ones that the collective can actually afford to treat itself; ie: any illness that is relatively cheap and simple to cure or fix. the rest of the healthcare should be up to the individual completely. that's just my idea. but we need to tweak the government and our entire culture before we let it get that involved.

short version, i think: it used to be very cheap to get healthcare because back then there simply weren't all these holes to jump through. doctors i don't think even had to go to traditional college, i think they could be self educated if they really wanted to be. also the doctors would travel around from house to house providing services. the government stepped in and basically made everyone get a degree and everyone set up a business with licenses and paperwork and endless hoops to jump through on everyone's part.

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.

So you're an anarchist, then?

Are you serious in believing that nothing the government does is good?

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.

If people want to give up being taxed, they should be willing to give up anything else they get from the government. And I doubt most people want to live in anarchy.

Universal health care sounds good to me, as long as people still have the option of choosing a private doctor if they don't want the government stuff. The thing is, taxes ALREADY pay for healthcare. If a person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, then taxes have to cover it because hospitals can't turn away someone with their life at risk. Might as well allow for preventative care and whatnot.

I think it's ridiculous that America doesn't already have universal health care. I can't get over the fact that in the US, if you get a cancer diagnosis, if you don't have healthcare, you lose your house to pay for treatment. And if you do have healthcare, it's probably through work, so you can't leave work to take the treatment without losing health cover, and if you do, then you won't be able to get health care again, because no one who wants to hire you. That's ******** up.

Meanwhile, in every other first world country, we have universal healthcare, and the world hasn't imploded. And if you want extra cover, and have some extra money, you have the option to buy private healthcare.

Personally I use healthcare all the freaking time, and would probably be dead if the government wasn't paying for a large percentage of it.

Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.

People are seldom simple. Their views are not always logical.

I think the opposition falls into a few main camps, which are not cleanly divided between each other and don't entirely make sense even within their own camp.

On one side are the insurance companies. They make a fortune off the current system. Anything that makes them take on more high-risk people, limits their profits, or - worst of all - takes them out of the middle entirely, has to be bad. They have well-funded lobbyists, who contribute mightily to politicians of all types and can buy all the airtime on Fox they want.

Another camp simply doesn't want to pay for anyone else's care but their own. They already have high-quality, expensive health plans. They see most of the poor as being lazy moochers with no work ethic, and don't want to give them a free ride. They want to be sure any public health care is minimal, watered-down, preferably paid for by somebody else. And once it's in place, they want to keep their own high-quality plans instead.

A third camp doesn't want to pay for their own care either. They feel they only have enough money to handle their own day-to-day expenses. They're healthy now, and would rather deal with paying for health care later, if it ever actually becomes necessary.

A problem is that none of those people are entirely wrong. Corporate CEOs are supposed to protect their company's profits. Some poor people really are lazy moochers. And it is not a sin to enjoy the fruits of your labor today.

^^ Generally agreed. The original version was a pretty good bill before it got ripped apart to appease Republicans (who wound up voting against it anyway). The version that got signed will still help a lot.

Come to think of it, Hilary Clinton's version (12 years ago, when Bill was in office) would have helped, if that bill hadn't gotten bogged down with the right-to-sue details.

Can you please explain the opposition towards universal health care? As far as I've understood, people seem to want the right to not have health care... Which while understandable in a purely theoretical sense, but makes no practical sense at all.

Health insurance relies on some people paying in more than they will get out of the system, in order to make good on their promises to people who fall ill as well as to make a profit. There are some people who would much rather put away $1,000/month in a savings account than piss it away on health insurance premiums. In their minds, why bother with "health insurance" at all? If we're going towards a universal health care model, let's do away with the idea of insurance and just make sure everyone can get the care they need.

I could agree the government needs to get more efficient, but I don't think it should be providing health care to everyone (least of all doing so using the corrupt crony capitalist system as the delivery method). Really I don't think the government should be doing anything that requires that it force people to give it money to fund it. Taxation is theft -- nothing built on theft is good.

"Taxation is theft"?

So you don't want a government at all?

You're right, nothing built on theft is good.

Roads and bridges are terrible, national parks are a disgrace, public infrastructure should be outlawed.

Yes, taxation is theft. It is taking by force without permission. That immoral act taints whatever follows, so government anything is immoral.

Unreasonable taxation is theft. Not taxation itself. However, the popular excuse of 'well, they can afford it more than I can and it will benefit ME' IS theft.

Another camp simply doesn't want to pay for anyone else's care but their own. They already have high-quality, expensive health plans. They see most of the poor as being lazy moochers with no work ethic, and don't want to give them a free ride. They want to be sure any public health care is minimal, watered-down, preferably paid for by somebody else. And once it's in place, they want to keep their own high-quality plans instead.

A right-wing friend of mine re-posted this on Facebook a couple days ago. I think it's a good example of this second opposition group: He thinks he's wealthy because he works hard. He thinks poor people are poor because they're lazy.